Copy a link

Embeddable content

To learn more about measures, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.

Election Results

Passed

7,167,315 votes yes (59.7%)

4,828,564 votes no (40.3%)

100% of precincts reporting (24,312/24,312).

Gives Legislature ability to change daylight saving time period by two-thirds vote, if changes are consistent with federal law. Fiscal Impact: This measure has no direct fiscal effect because changes to daylight saving time would depend on future actions by the Legislature and potentially the federal government.

What is this proposal?

Easy Voter Guide — Summary for new and busy voters

Information provided by The League of Women Voters of California Education Fund

The way it is now

Federal law sets standard time zones for each area of the country. California and other western states are in the Pacific Standard time zone. Current law requires the time of each zone to move forward by one hour from early March to early November each year during a period called Daylight Saving Time. During this period, sunrises and sunsets happen one hour later. Federal law lets states choose to stay on standard time all year long, but prevents states from having year-round Daylight Saving Time.

What if it passes?

Prop 7 would allow state lawmakers to vote on changing Daylight Saving Time. Lawmakers would be able to choose year-round Daylight Saving Time, if allowed by federal law. Any change would require support from two thirds of California’s Legislature. Until then, Prop 7 would keep California’s current Daylight Saving Time schedule.

Budget effect

Prop 7 would have no immediate effects. Impacts on state and local government would likely be very small.

People FOR say

Always being on Daylight Saving Time would have positive public health effects. When people don’t have to change their clocks, the risk of heart attacks and strokes goes down.

This change would also reduce energy costs and increase work production.

People AGAINST say

If the sun rises an hour later in the winter this will have negative effects on schools, traffic and public safety.

Having a different time than other western states would create confusion.

Pros & Cons — Unbiased explanation with arguments for and against

Information provided by League of Women Voters of California Education Fund

The Question

Should the legislature be allowed to change Daylight Savings Time by a two-thirds vote if federal law authorizes it?

The Situation

Part-year Daylight Savings Time was started during World War II in order to save energy. California voters approved it in 1949 and for that reason, the voters would have to vote to authorize the legislature to change it to year-round.

Federal law requires states to have Daylight Savings Time from early March to early November and standard time the rest of the year (about four months). However, states are permitted to have standard time all year, without federal approval. Hawaii and Arizona stay on standard time all year. In order for a state to switch to year-round Daylight Savings Time, Congress and the President must approve the proposal.

The Proposal

Prop. 7 is both an advisory measure and a change in law. It encourages the legislature to consider instituting year-round Daylight Savings Time. It would change current law by requiring a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to change the period of Daylight Savings Time, to make it year round, or to stay on standard time. However, even if two-thirds of the legislature passes such a bill, the change to year-round Daylight Savings Time would still have to approved by a vote of Congress and a Presidential signature.

Fiscal effect

The proposition has no direct fiscal impact on state and local government because the legislature and the federal government still must act on it. If the change is made, there could be a minor fiscal impact that is unknown at this time.

Supporters say

Medical studies show that the risk of heart attacks and strokes increases during the days following a time change.

Changing clocks twice a year increases our use of electricity by 4%, increases the amount of fuel used by cars and costs $434 million.

Opponents say

The United States tried year-round Daylight Savings Time in 1974 because of the energy crisis. People hated getting up in the dark in the morning.

There are no conclusive studies that having Daylight Savings Time year-round saves energy or money.

Measure Details — Official information about this measure

YES vote means

A YES vote on this measure means: The Legislature, with a two-thirds vote, could change daylight saving time if the change is allowed by the federal government. Absent any legislative change, California would maintain its current daylight saving time period (early March to early November).

NO vote means

A NO vote on this measure means: California would maintain its current daylight saving time period.

Summary

Office of the Attorney General

Establishes the time zone designated by federal law as “Pacific standard time” as the standard time within California.

Provides that California daylight saving time begins at 2 a.m. on the second Sunday of March and ends at 2 a.m. on the first Sunday of November, consistent with current federal law.

Permits the Legislature by twothirds vote to make future changes to California’s daylight saving time period, including for its yearround application, if changes are consistent with federal law.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:

This measure has no direct fiscal effect because changes to daylight saving time would depend on future actions by the Legislature and potentially the federal government.

Background

Legislative Analyst's Office

Federal Law Establishes Daylight Saving Time for Part of the Year. Federal law establishes a standard time zone for each area of the U.S. For example, California and other western states are in the Pacific standard time zone. Federal law requires the standard time of each zone to advance by one hour from early March to early November—a period known as Daylight Saving Time (DST). During DST, sunrises and sunsets occur one hour later than they otherwise would. Currently, federal law does not allow states to adopt year-round DST. However, federal law allows states to opt out of DST and remain on standard time all year, as is currently the case in Arizona and Hawaii.

California Voted on DST About 70 Years Ago. In 1949, California voters approved an initiative measure which established DST in California. The Legislature can only make changes to that initiative measure by submitting those changes to the voters for their approval.

Impartial analysis / Proposal

Legislative Analyst's Office

Proposition 7 allows the Legislature with a two-thirds vote to change DST (such as by remaining on DST year-round), as long as the change is allowed under federal law. Until any such change, California would maintain the current DST period.

Financial effect

Legislative Analyst's Office

No Direct Fiscal Effects on State and Local Governments. The measure would have no direct effect on state and local government costs or revenues. This is because any impacts would depend on future actions by the Legislature—and potentially the federal government—to change DST.

Potential Impacts of Changes to DST. If the Legislature changed DST, there could be a variety of effects. For example, if the Legislature approved year-round DST, sunrises and sunsets would occur one hour later between November and March. Such a change could affect the net amount of energy used for lighting, heating, and cooling during those months. In addition, the current system of DST during part of the year likely affects the amount of sleep some people get when switching between standard time and DST twice a year. This potentially affects such things as worker productivity and the number of accidents. Year-round DST would eliminate these effects. The net effect of such changes on state and local government finances is unclear, but would likely be minor.

Published Arguments — Arguments for and against the ballot measure

Arguments FOR

Proposition 7 will end the biannual time changes that medical researchers and economists agree are hazardous to the health and productivity of schoolchildren, the workforce and seniors. Vote Yes on Proposition 7 to keep our children, workplaces and roadways safe

— Official Voter Information Guide

Arguments FOR

What does it cost us to change our clocks twice a year? Here are some facts to consider. University medical studies in 2012 found that the risk of heart attacks increases by 10% in the two days following a time change. In 2016, further research revealed that stroke risks increase 8% when we change our clocks. For cancer patients the stroke risk increases 25% and for people over age 65 stroke risk goes up 20%. All because we disrupt sleep patterns.

And every parent knows what it means when our children’s sleep patterns are disrupted twice a year.

Now consider money. Changing our clocks twice a year increases our use of electricity 4% in many parts of the world, increases the amount of fuel we use in our cars, and comes with a cost of $434 million. That’s money we can save.

Changing our clocks doesn’t change when the sun rises or sets. Nature does that. Summer days will always be longer. Winter days will stay shorter.

Since 2000, 14 countries have stopped changing their clocks. And now 68% of all the countries don’t do it. They allow nature to determine time, not their governments. Lowering health risk. Reducing energy consumption. Saving money.

A YES vote on Proposition 7 allows California to consider making Daylight Saving Time or Standard Time our year-round time—changing things that are more important than changing our clocks.

Proposition 7 will require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before any final decision is made.

ASSEMBLYMEMBER KANSEN CHUCalifornia Assembly District 25

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LORENA GONZALEZCalifornia Assembly District 80

DR. SION ROY, M.D., Cardiologist

— Official Voter Information Guide

Arguments AGAINST

Proposition 7 allows for permanent Daylight Saving time, subject to federal approval. It would be light in the evening in the summer, as it is now, but winter mornings would be dark for an extra hour so children would be going to school in the dark

— Official Voter Information Guide

Arguments AGAINST

Please vote “No” on Proposition 7. Proposition 7 will result in California switching to permanent Daylight Saving Time. We’ve tried this before and it was a disaster. In 1974, an energy crisis led President Nixon to declare emergency full-time Daylight Saving Time. It was supposed to last 16 months but was stopped after 10 months because people hated the fact that in the morning, the sun rose too late.

Daylight Saving Time does not create more hours of daylight. It just changes when those daylight hours occur. If you live in Anaheim, the sun will rise at 6:55 a.m. on Christmas morning this year. With Daylight Saving Time, it would be 7:55 a.m.

We have Daylight Saving Time in the summer so it is light after we get home from work. And we switch to Standard Time in the winter so it’s light in the morning.

What will it mean to have permanent Daylight Saving Time? The sun will rise an hour later than if we were on Standard Time. If you live in Eureka or Susanville, it would still be dark at 8 a.m. on New Year’s Day. If you live in Los Angeles or Twentynine Palms, the sun won’t rise until 7:30 a.m. or later from November to February.

Those of you who like to wake up with the sun will wake up in the dark. You’ll be getting your family ready for the day in the dark; your kids will be walking to school or waiting for the school bus before the sun rises. For those of you who get your exercise or attend religious services before work, you’ll be doing it in darkness.

Some make the argument that Daylight Saving Time saves us energy or makes us safer. But there’s no scientific evidence of that. It’s just a question of convenience. We now have Daylight Saving Time in the summer so we can have extra light in the evening, when we can enjoy it, rather than having that daylight between 5 and 6 in the morning when we’d prefer it were dark. And then in the winter we switch back to Standard Time so it's not so dark in the morning.

Being on permanent Daylight Saving Time will put us out of sync with our neighbors. While we’ll always have the same time as Arizona, part of the year we’ll have the same time as the other Mountain Time states and the rest of the year we’ll be in line with Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Mexico.

Yes, it’s a minor inconvenience when we “Spring ahead” and we lose that hour (even though it’s great to get that extra hour when we “Fall back”). But avoiding these transitions is not worth the confusion with other states’ times, and the months of dark mornings we’ll have to endure if we have permanent Daylight Saving Time.

SENATOR HANNAH-BETH JACKSON19th Senate District

PHILLIP CHEN, Assemblymember 55th District

— Official Voter Information Guide

Replies to Arguments FOR

The proponents of permanent Daylight Saving insist it will save us energy. It will not. Many studies have been conducted on this topic and there is no conclusive evidence that full-time daylight saving will save us a dime. Any brief potential increase in certain medical conditions needs to be weighed against the dangers of it being dark later in the morning in the winter.

Changing our clocks twice a year may be inconvenient. But requiring days to start in the dark during winter is more than inconvenient— it’s dangerous. It’s dangerous for children heading to school or waiting for the bus in the dark and for adults who have to start their commutes in darkness as well. The same failed experiment in 1974 to have Daylight Saving Time year-round confirmed this dangerous reality.

The advantages of maintaining the present system of Daylight Saving Time in the spring, summer, and fall with Standard Time in the winter are clear:

daylight into the evening in the summer

daylight in the morning in the winter

avoids putting us an hour ahead of neighboring western states and Mexico four months of the year

Increased danger for children and adults in winter, different time than the states around us. It’s not worth it. Vote No on Prop. 7.

SENATOR HANNAH-BETH JACKSON 19th Senate District

— Official Voter Information Guide

Replies to Arguments AGAINST

Opponents of Proposition 7 can’t dispute the scientific and economic facts showing that the changing of clocks twice a year is hazardous to our health and our economy. Proposition 7 is about keeping our communities, workplaces, schools and roadways safe and productive. Whenever there’s a time change, studies show that heart attacks and strokes are more likely to occur.

Children are knocked off their usual sleep pattern and become more unfocused in the classroom.